For our next war, we'll go to live chat and find an unsuspecting new clan. Then we'll get them to set up a bunch of City Mogul games on our settings, on which none of their members have played, beat them, and then promise to explain the map in live chat after the war.

Repeat 300x's, including some middle-tier clans for good measure. We'll be #1 forever.

ViperOverLord wrote:I'd figure out a system that weights the current year and only extends to about two and a half years and then victories/losses are thrown away.

The problem is is that I don't intend to log how many points each clan takes from another per war; I'll just calculate it and move on. So, when a result would become no longer relevant, then I wouldn't know how many points to give back/take away.

It's simple. You just put each clan's results dated on a spread sheet and when results expire, you knock them off (delete the row). With formulas, the results will automatically change.

And I'd reiterate, it would be a good idea to include formulas for the various vs. competitions. I'd also, come up with results that factor the closeness of a war. I believe those factors would distinguish it from the f-400 model.

If he wants it like CC score, it wouldn't decay

Yea - I think it's better to use CC Rankings as a starting point and then make the formula better and more current. But he can do what he wants__ just giving my ideas.

As new clans will always come in high before they have earned a place, maybe clan with 5 or less challenges could be shown in bold so that they can be naturally filtered by the eye untill they have a representitive showing.

Something I've always liked about the F400 is that it also has a column to show the best result for the clan (the best clan they defeated), which is a concept that transferred from the Leap Ladder in a sense.

That'd be especially useful here, because I'm really finding it difficult to find any top 20 victories for the likes of TNC? Perhaps OSA really is the highest of their scalps?

benga wrote:Are the results calculated based on the dates when wars finishedor are they sumed up monthly like F400?

They are calculated by the dates of when the wars finish.

cookie0117 wrote:As new clans will always come in high before they have earned a place, maybe clan with 5 or less challenges could be shown in bold so that they can be naturally filtered by the eye untill they have a representative showing.

Good idea. I'll implement it shortly.

Leehar wrote:Something I've always liked about the F400 is that it also has a column to show the best result for the clan (the best clan they defeated), which is a concept that transferred from the Leap Ladder in a sense.

That'd be especially useful here, because I'm really finding it difficult to find any top 20 victories for the likes of TNC? Perhaps OSA really is the highest of their scalps?

Yeah thats a great idea, but I'd have to redo the rankings at this points to figure out which scores their opponents had at the time they were beaten.

Now I'll be the first to say that TNC clearly doesn't belong in third, but they do have some pretty solid victories as of recently. In June alone they went 4-0 beating HH, LEG, DBC, and TFFS. None of these clans are spectacular, but I'd be pretty happy with a win over any of them.

For our next war, we'll go to live chat and find an unsuspecting new clan. Then we'll get them to set up a bunch of City Mogul games on our settings, on which none of their members have played, beat them, and then promise to explain the map in live chat after the war.

Repeat 300x's, including some middle-tier clans for good measure. We'll be #1 forever.

The following statement is absolutely unbiased.... I think that this ranking system is the best!!

All kidding aside, hats off to DTX for putting in the effort here! I do think that there is some merit to this ranking system and the experience factor of individual players that is included with it, however, I do agree that some sort of "weighting" should probably be factored in. (please note: I will be the first to admit that I am not sure how that can be accomplished in this particular scenario)

lynch5762 wrote:The following statement is absolutely unbiased.... I think that this ranking system is the best!!

All kidding aside, hats off to DTX for putting in the effort here! I do think that there is some merit to this ranking system and the experience factor of individual players that is included with it, however, I do agree that some sort of "weighting" should probably be factored in. (please note: I will be the first to admit that I am not sure how that can be accomplished in this particular scenario)

I appreciate the feedback.

One thing I think is interesting is that with this scoring formula there actually is a built-in weighting. Think about it this way:

Lets say you have a 1000 point player and a 2000 point players. The two start a thousand apart. The two both then proceed to defeat a 1000 point, 2000 point, and 1500 point player each.

Despite starting 1000 points apart, after 3 identical wins the two are only 958 apart. If you were to keep on doing this for another few hundred games, eventually the scores would get very close to each other.